Raj Persaud and Adrian Furnham believe Theresa May's humiliated defeat could have been avoided, had her top advisers taken a look at Britain's history of elections. They would have learned about the potential pitfalls of a snap election. According to a research on polling data and results from 1945 onwards, "decisions by prime ministers to hold an early election often backfire."
The authors say, this has much to do with our human mind. Indeed, the Brexit vote in June 2016 and this year's snap election had "proved political pundits, pollsters, and other prognosticators wrong." Many are searching for explanations, but if they "had paid attention to a well-established theory about the psychology of snap elections," they would have predicted May's defeat.
It has been a conventional wisdom that voting is a rational choice, and campaigners seek to win over voters by logical or illogical argument. Voting requires much effort from each individual, which is being offset by a considerable benefit if the decision is to be rational.What makes an election unpredictable is that "each of us separately has virtually zero influence on its outcome. Even though a single vote doesn't determine the election, it's the collective action that does.
But not everyone is capable of weighing up candidates’ pros and cons on different policies. In recent years, many cases show that our political behaviour is governed more by emotions and less by rationality. In times of economic hardships and terrorist threats populists capitalise on raw feelings and base instincts to win support. They assail the status quo embraced by the establishment, instilling fear and sowing discord.
May made mistakes that proved her undoing. She campaigned "poorly" although she promised "strong and stable leadership." She also underestimated her rival, Jeremy Corbyn, who addressed social grievances and issues that have dogged most voters. She miscalculated the popular support she enjoyed and was hoping that "the election would translate into actual votes." She didn't realise that Bremainers and young voters rejected her hard stance on Brexit and pulled the rug from under her feet by voting Labour.
Looking back, Harold Wilson "made the same mistake in May 1970, when he tried to take advantage of Labour’s popularity," only to let Conservatives win big. In 1997, France's President Jacques Chirac's call for an early parliamentary election ended badly. Australia experienced the same in 1998. Margaret Thatcher adopted the oppostite strategy, by refraining from holding a election in 1982, at the "height of her popularity" after the Falklands War. By the time she called for one in 1983, there were "fears about inflation" ahead of the 1984 election, which "would have sapped the Conservatives’ popularity."
According to the authors, "the key takeaway is that the timing of elections can reveal how well incumbents expect to perform in the future. All else being equal, competent governments will wait longer before going to the electorate, whereas insecure leaders will try to capitalize on their popularity when they have it."
According to "Smith’s theory, any leader who calls a snap election should expect to see his or her support decline, as has just occurred in Britain. May has proved to be a far less confident leader than anyone had expected." Perhaps her defeat is good for Britain. She would most likely make a lousy decision-maker in negotiating Brexit with Europe. Apart from vocation, the timing and luck may equally be important to determine the good fortune of a candidate.

I find this presentation correlating confidence with GE outcomes more compelling in the link above, ie economics

Simplistically the British public are only too aware every time they visit the supermarket that prices are rising. They also know that by and large their wages are not rising at the same rate, having been flat-lining for years. When May offered to sequestrate old folks houses on death to pay for their care and to means test the winter fuel payment she shot herself in the foot. Labour then shot her in the other foot by saying tuition fees could be scrapped for the youth. Basically Labour offered unfunded bribes and bought votes. May was trying to head off a timebomb in the NHS, that 75+ year olds need 5x the budget provision of 25yr olds and their numbers are growing. In an environment of consume confidence concerns May's strategy was a nonsense and reduced her credibility with voters. I dont know why anybody is cheered by Corbyn's strategy because he had an open goal and still hit the bar. Equally I dont know why anybody can be cheered by May's result because it shows a lack of understanding of the public's concerns which are pretty basic

Alaistair Smith's book on election timing came out over a dozen years ago when Social Media and new technology able to process big data sets where far less developed. Most importantly, his book appeared before the passing of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
This is a poor quality article which appears to be ignorant of recent British political history. Harold In 1966, Wilson called a snap election after just a year and a half in office to improve his majority. The gamble paid off. In 1970 he advanced the election by a few months so as to avoid the negative fall-out from decimalization. It is not true to say 'Former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson made the same mistake (as Theresa May) in May 1970, when he tried to take advantage of Labour’s popularity. During the ensuing campaign, Labour’s support collapsed, and the Conservatives ended up winning 330 of 630 seats.' Wilson only brought forward the election by a few months. May had years to run. The truth is she was trying to do what Wilson did in '66. She failed because she ran a terrible campaign. Wilson had the 'Fab Four' and other celebrities behind him. He talked of a new Britain to be forged in the 'White Heat of the Technological Revolution'. May only opened her mouth to put her foot in it.
Heath and Thatcher went to the polls because they wanted a popular mandate to take on the Unions. May's excuse was that she needed a big majority to talk tough with Brussels. Why? Both main parties are pro-Brexit. The size of May's majority makes no difference to the Europeans she is negotiating with. Take the example of Greece. Even if 100 percent of the Greek population had voted 'Oxi', it would have made no difference to the Eurozone Ministers. Foreign leaders don't say 'OMG, your Majority is so much bigger than mine! I must agree to your demands immediately!'
May never explained why she needed a bigger majority. Voters assumed it was so as to beat down her rivals. But May did not present herself in an appealing light. Nor did she give free reign to popular Tory leaders- or at least one's less boring than her. She believed she was more in touch with the common man than the Etonian elite. But she was deluding herself. She couldn't even eat chips with out looking awkward. Then there was her story about 'running through fields of wheat' which, apparently, displeased farmers. Why? Clearly she was coyly hinting that she was one of Steven King's children of the corn who participated in gruesome rites of human sacrifice.
Even that claim couldn't make her cool. Corbyn, meanwhile, was promising an end to tuition fees and locked up they Youth vote.

Why do leaders call snap elections? In every case, it is because they wish to strengthen their hand with respect to rivals or dissidents within their own party. Thatcher in '83, like Wilson in '66, was establishing a personal ascendancy. But, in those days, there were few TV channels and a charismatic PM could gain a hegemonic position relative to rivals thanks to the manner in which public opinion was mobilised. That has changed now.
It is not true to say that- 'All else being equal, competent governments will wait longer before going to the electorate, whereas insecure leaders will try to capitalize on their popularity when they have it.' It is a matter of common knowledge that incompetent people don't think they are incompetent. They blame everyone but themselves for their failures. A Party leader who calls a snap election does not do so because she feels she is incompetent but because she thinks she could be competent if only everybody obeyed her unquestioningly. Corbyn knew that the election would decimate Labour but would increase his own power over the party- that's why he didn't fight May's decision in Parliament. Corbyn, not May, may have thought of himself as incompetent and that things could only get worse. Yet, because Corbyn put up a creditable performance while May ducked and ran, it is Corbyn who has benefited.

Can 'psychologists' or 'political scientists' really tell us anything interesting? No. They are too stupid and ignorant. That's the good thing about Democracy. It permits us to see that these soi disant experts are charlatans.

Its called being over confident. It doesnt need psychiatrists. It very simple. In a GE the oppo doesnt win the incumbents lose. The incumbents have the advantage. Please stop trying to make stupidity into a theory is well ... stupid

The arguments used by the authors are very sound and there are even many other examples that one can list to add to their arguments. In December 2016, I predicted here on PS the GE in the UK ( although T.May kept on denying it for months afterwards) and only last month I stated also here on PS exactly the same arguments and more examples of the authors and predicted T.May's loss of her majority in the GE. So, all in all, factually correct article although the example of M. Thatcher and N Lawson do not corellate to today's events, since today's and future events were known to the British electorate before the GE, whilst during the time of Thatcher and Lawson, the electorate were somewhat in the dark.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.